401 réponses à ce sujet

[esper]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

esper wrote...
It is not how the in characters experience the events of the game. It is how the player does. And if something is likely to affect the players experience of the game, it needs to be told in game.

No. It. Does. Not.

Really what this seems to boil down to is that ya'll want ALL the meta-knowledge. It is not okay for you to deal with the info you currently have on hand. Which is fine, we're all entitled to our preferred playstyle. It is not, however, a flaw in the writing or a flaw in characterization to not grant you all your preferred meta-knowledge. The writers can choose to let a character comfortably stagnate and let them remain in the neatly labelled boxes they have been placed in by the players or they can choose to evolve and develop that character further. Whether these revelations please you in that they make for a more realistic and evolving person or disgust you because the character no longer meshes with how you want them to be is all up to you. Feel whatever you want.

As long as we can agree that it's not a mistake to choose not to drop a character's development because the direction it takes might make someone uncomfortable.

Seriously. DG needs to add "inconsistency" to his list of words fans misuse. Inconsistency ≠ "my opinion of the character changed because they did something I didn't like and no one told me beforehand."

I have not used the word inconsistent and I won't because I don't think that it is inconsistent. That is not the problem The problem is how we as player perceive the story and if something is directly related to Isabella's major story arc in da2. (And let's face it, this is a major part of the story) then it needs to be told in the story it belongs. Not necessarily to Hawke, but to the player.

[esper]

leaguer of one wrote...

esper wrote...

Ironic Discordia wrote...

esper wrote...

No I think you are missing the point of what I am saying:

If a game has exactly the same 'plot flags' as the story the comic happens as read. If not, the story of the comic changes - this makes the comic non-canon.

Now this doesn't means that the event don't happens, but they happens differently and thus the story as presented in comic is not canon.


If any of these events is important to future da-narratives then it is bioware's job, not mine, to tell the 'what if' versions on the comic in game. Just as it is bioware's (since it is stresses that each installment is standalone) to convery the important information of the comics to the games.

Either a story is canon or it isn't. If it is important for the story to have certain events, such as Marrics fate, canon in game. Then it is bioware's job to present it. Of course if the fate of Marric isn't important to the game, then wherever it is canon or not is completely irrellevant (at least ot me).

We are, in fact, arguing semantics here. The definition of 'canon' I'm using is "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works." In that sense, and per the lead writer of the series, the comics are canon. I don't personally see a point in continuing to debate the semantics here when neither of us is going to change our opinion.

Well, as I study narratives, the semantics are quite important, so I am curious what do you do when you have the 'what if' scenerious. Those are often sanctioned or accepted by the creators. Yet they are strictly non-canon in universe.

You who thinks media effects quality study narratives? If your going to argue on sematics, understand that it can be relative.
 You seem to argue on the term that it's subjective only.

Media does effect the quality of a narrative because it is one of the most dominant tools in how the narrative is told.
And I am still not saying that one media is superior to another. And I am truely sorry if you somehow got that out of it. Just that some medias are better for certain narratives (and I am not talking about dragon age specifically here) and than when adapting you need to adapt everything because almost every tool works differently when the media change.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I think If Bioware's position is that we need to read supporting materials to understand the characters then it doesn't need to be added to the game. But Laidlaw's comments in the podcast imply otherwise.

[Wulfram]

It's hard for me to see myself enjoying interacting with Isabela in a game again with this elephant in the room hanging around but completely unaddressable. I guess that's my issue with it.

[Fredward]

^^^ I know you haven't but a lot of people seem to be doing that exact thing. I still disagree with you though. I don't see why this should be revealed in game. I don't understand why the character needs to be completely exposed all at once. Yes it may change your opinion of Isabela. Yours. Not your PC, who still won't know it, because Isabela chose not to speak about it. Like I said this boils down to wanting all the meta-knowledge pertaining to a character, and that definitely is not necessary for a good story. In fact I'd argue that the opposite is true.

This just breaks down to personal preference. And that means the final choice lays with the writers.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 17 septembre 2013 - 09:09 .

[esper]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I think If Bioware's position is that we need to read supporting materials to understand the characters then it doesn't need to be added to the game. But Laidlaw's comments in the podcast imply otherwise.

My biggest fear is personally the rumoured Asunder companionen. Of course it might be an minor character, but I do fear that is a bigger one... That will cause problems.

[leaguer of one]

esper wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

esper wrote...

Ironic Discordia wrote...

esper wrote...

No I think you are missing the point of what I am saying:

If a game has exactly the same 'plot flags' as the story the comic happens as read. If not, the story of the comic changes - this makes the comic non-canon.

Now this doesn't means that the event don't happens, but they happens differently and thus the story as presented in comic is not canon.


If any of these events is important to future da-narratives then it is bioware's job, not mine, to tell the 'what if' versions on the comic in game. Just as it is bioware's (since it is stresses that each installment is standalone) to convery the important information of the comics to the games.

Either a story is canon or it isn't. If it is important for the story to have certain events, such as Marrics fate, canon in game. Then it is bioware's job to present it. Of course if the fate of Marric isn't important to the game, then wherever it is canon or not is completely irrellevant (at least ot me).

We are, in fact, arguing semantics here. The definition of 'canon' I'm using is "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works." In that sense, and per the lead writer of the series, the comics are canon. I don't personally see a point in continuing to debate the semantics here when neither of us is going to change our opinion.

Well, as I study narratives, the semantics are quite important, so I am curious what do you do when you have the 'what if' scenerious. Those are often sanctioned or accepted by the creators. Yet they are strictly non-canon in universe.

You who thinks media effects quality study narratives? If your going to argue on sematics, understand that it can be relative.
 You seem to argue on the term that it's subjective only.

Media does effect the quality of a narrative because it is one of the most dominant tools in how the narrative is told.
And I am still not saying that one media is superior to another. And I am truely sorry if you somehow got that out of it. Just that some medias are better for certain narratives (and I am not talking about dragon age specifically here) and than when adapting you need to adapt everything because almost every tool works differently when the media change.

No it how it's made not the media it's self The difference from one media to another is what the maker has to do to get it to work and get it to be a quality piece. A person can make a master peice out of crayons if they have the skill. The differenct is what is need to be done to get it to quality. A game needs more effort to get it to quality then a comic book does, that does not make the game better in quality then a comic book. THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING.

[leaguer of one]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

I think If Bioware's position is that we need to read supporting materials to understand the characters then it doesn't need to be added to the game. But Laidlaw's comments in the podcast imply otherwise.

You don;t need support material to understand the characters. Isabela says the same no matter if you know about this or not. What changes is how you feel about the character.

[leaguer of one]

Wulfram wrote...

It's hard for me to see myself enjoying interacting with Isabela in a game again with this elephant in the room hanging around but completely unaddressable. I guess that's my issue with it.

Think about it this way. Isabela as a person does not change with this new info. It's just your feelings of her that changes. Add, your pc is ignorant of her actions anyway.

[wcholcombe]

esper wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, are we seriously arguing it is inconsistent because Isabella didn't completely open up that yes she had murdered hundreds of slaves? Seriously?

Even if you were in love with someone, how willing would you be to just throw that out there.

She obviously lives with a lot of guilt, but from the game standpoint, there was no reason for her to just throw out there-"Hey before you knew me I killed hundreds of slaves to save my life. Lets get some breakfast love." Good grief, even if you romance Isabella, it isn't like ya'll live happily ever after, she has killed one husband already, I don't see her sticking with Hawke long term either. Especially sense, guess what Hawke dissappears.

First of Isabella don't have to tell Hawke. Someone has to inform the player.

Say someone like Castilion (wasn't that his name?) going 'What right do you have to free my slaves, considering you drowned yours'.

See - the player is now informed.

But why does the player need to know?  Does it not make the characters more interesting and appealing that they have secrets and shames and other aspects of their life that you are completely oblivious about?  It makes them realistic and believable.

[esper]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

^^^ I know you haven't but a lot of people seem to be doing that exact thing. I still disagree with you though. I don't see why this should be revealed in game. I don't understand why the character needs to be completely exposed all at once. Yes it may change your opinion of Isabela. Yours. Not your PC, who still won't know it, because Isabela chose not to speak about it. Like I said this boils down to wanting all the meta-knowledge pertaining to a character, and that definitely is not necessary for a good story. In fact I'd argue that the opposite is true.

This just breaks down to personal preference. And that means the final choice lays with the writers.

If it is relevant to the specific story arc and that story is finished. (And yes, da2's story is finished) then something that is this important should at the very least be hinted at. Perhaps they should have chosen to focus on an aspect of Isabella that wasn't in focus in game. That would have minimalized the risk a lot.

And of course it does always come down to the writer. For every rule about good story telling you can find someone who did the opposite and told a good story, it is just hard to pull off, and I don't think they did it here. I also think that with each extra material they add, the bigger the risk of disconnecting the players.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

It's a comic book, you guys. It's like the lowest form of literature there is. Not only that, but it's a comic book tie-in to a video game. Its whole basis for existence is to sell merchandise and new copies of whatever they're promoting. That's why they always suck. It's really not worth the headache that's been present in this thread.

Don't like Isabella drowning slaves? Don't recognize it. If it was an important detail BioWare would've made mention of it in the game. Same goes for Maric and the transexual mage. If they're important, they'll show up in Inquisition or future titles.

The thing people seem to forget is that the tie-in stuff is just advertising. That's the whole point of the novels, the comics, t-shirts, and novelty mugs. It advertises the real product - the game. I'm normally fine with this, but what bugs me is that with Dragon Age it seems like the tie-in stuff (which universally contains terrible prose) is actively trying to destroy the cool things about the games and their stories. Isabela's arc worked without drowning a whole boat full of slaves. Alistair worked when he was just a royal bastard by a lonely king and a star-struck maid. Did we really need the implication that his mother is an elven grey warden and that Duncan didn't recruit him because he saw potential in the boy, but because of some promise he made to Fiona?

Seriously, it's like the tie-in stuff is trying to hobble its own universe.

[leaguer of one]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

It's a comic book, you guys. It's like the lowest form of literature there is. Not only that, but it's a comic book tie-in to a video game. Its whole basis for existence is to sell merchandise and new copies of whatever they're promoting. That's why they always suck. It's really not worth the headache that's been present in this thread.

.

/Face palm.

Wow, you can't even be anymore ignorante.

[Fredward]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Don't like Isabella drowning slaves? Don't recognize it. If it was an important detail BioWare would've made mention of it in the game. Same goes for Maric and the transexual mage. If they're important, they'll show up in Inquisition or future titles.

You can choose not to recognize it but it's gonna be akin to a six year old closing their eyes and pretending not to see you when they know they're in trouble. Choosing not to recognize it isn't gonna alter reality. It happened. It's canon. As for the rest of your post... that's just like, your opinion man.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem I see is that people want to take the comics and books which are David Gaider's canon and apply them to the games. Comics and books must have a set canon to be able to tell a story, Games on the other hand are more interactive with the gamer participating in the story.

I separate the three. What happens in the comics and books make for nice background material to flush out alternative parts of the universe but basically have no bearing on what is presented in the game unless the gamer allows it to matter.

If Alstair dies in DAO does that mean that the comic cannot happen? Of course not! The game were you sacrifice Alstair is your game canon. The comics as I stated before is Gaider's canon.

I take the books, comics and games as separate pieces of the same universe. Changes in the media have always happen to make it relevant for the time period.
Take for example Iron Man, his origin originally was set in the Vietnam war era. That comic origin was updated to make it more relevant for today's audience. The new origin has Stark in Afghanistan where he is wounded and captured by extremists.

The movie could have stayed true to the original comic origin, but it would be relevant to only those who lived through those times without taking a history lesson. The directors chose to go with the new origin which most people could relate.
I can relate to both origins since I lived through both periods and understood the update, but for me the original origin is the canon one.

For someone not born in that era the new one would be canon.

The original comic and cartoon canon Superman could not fly. Superman actually started to fly in the radio (2 years after his origin in the comics) . The comics still had him not flying. Other powers were introduce in the movies and TV series that were not in the comic book. In fact in the comic and early cartoon

He was faster than an express train
Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound
lift tremendous weight
Nothing less than a bursting shell could penetrate his skin
Leap an eighth of a mile

That is not the canon Superman that people know today. The different media had different takes on Superman. Eventually the comics adopted flight and the other powers.

All of these media still existed in the Superman universe.
That is why for me the stories for the comics, books and games are kept separate in the same universe. Makes for nice background material but nothing more.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 septembre 2013 - 09:27 .

[OLDIRTYBARON]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...
Don't like Isabella drowning slaves? Don't recognize it. If it was an important detail BioWare would've made mention of it in the game. Same goes for Maric and the transexual mage. If they're important, they'll show up in Inquisition or future titles.

You can choose not to recognize it but it's gonna be akin to a six year old closing their eyes and pretending not to see you when they know they're in trouble. Choosing not to recognize it isn't gonna alter reality. It happened. It's canon. As for the rest of your post... that's just like, your opinion man.

To their credit, BioWare goes to great lengths to dismantle any semblance of "canon" in their work. There is no "canon" story to Dragon Age (or Mass Effect for that matter), so until these events are mentioned in game or acknowledged in the work itself in some way, they are what BioWare has always said they are - side stories of little to no consequence. Little more than "what if?" stories.

If you don't like a frivolous detail in a bad comic book, just don't bother with it. It's unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

[esper]

wcholcombe wrote...

esper wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, are we seriously arguing it is inconsistent because Isabella didn't completely open up that yes she had murdered hundreds of slaves? Seriously?

Even if you were in love with someone, how willing would you be to just throw that out there.

She obviously lives with a lot of guilt, but from the game standpoint, there was no reason for her to just throw out there-"Hey before you knew me I killed hundreds of slaves to save my life. Lets get some breakfast love." Good grief, even if you romance Isabella, it isn't like ya'll live happily ever after, she has killed one husband already, I don't see her sticking with Hawke long term either. Especially sense, guess what Hawke dissappears.

First of Isabella don't have to tell Hawke. Someone has to inform the player.

Say someone like Castilion (wasn't that his name?) going 'What right do you have to free my slaves, considering you drowned yours'.

See - the player is now informed.

But why does the player need to know?  Does it not make the characters more interesting and appealing that they have secrets and shames and other aspects of their life that you are completely oblivious about?  It makes them realistic and believable.

Yes and no?
If I don't know anything about these secrets and shames add nothing to the character. I mean I can head canon, we all do and fill in the blanks such as how she felt her first time, but the blanks which are a major part of the characters key issue in the story really needs to be conveyed to the, in this case, player.

This is not minior, this is the first chain of events that leads to the arishock attacking Kirkwall.
After all it goes this Isabella kills slaves - >Isabella feels guilt -> Isabella chooses to free the next slaves -> Isabella is in debt - > Isabella steals Quanri relic....
It is very important first step to understanding why the Arishok attack on Kirkwall eventually happened. And thus it should really have been conveied in that story. (The games are still stand alone).

[Han Shot First]

The comics and books are canon until they conflict with content that is in the game. Game canon supercedes book or comic canon.

There isn't any conflict between Isabela's portrayal in the comics however and her content in the games, so those events remain canon.

[Fredward]

Aaaaaaaand people still don't understand canon. Welp I'm going to bed.

[Ryzaki]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Aaaaaaaand people still don't understand canon. Welp I'm going to bed.

I figured this out 5 years ago with Harry Potter.

God debating those interviews...

[OLDIRTYBARON]

Ryzaki wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Aaaaaaaand people still don't understand canon. Welp I'm going to bed.

I figured this out 5 years ago with Harry Potter.

God debating those interviews...

What do you mean? The Dumbledore Was Gay thing?

[Ryzaki]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Aaaaaaaand people still don't understand canon. Welp I'm going to bed.

I figured this out 5 years ago with Harry Potter.

God debating those interviews...

What do you mean? The Dumbledore Was Gay thing?

That was a part of it but she didn't exactly contradict herself on that so I was fine with it. It was mostly the whole Slytherins weren't all traitors thing despite the book's many suggestions that...they were. (And about her negative portrayals of Slytherins in the books). And other things. It's been a while. XD But she contradicted herself several times in interviews with what was in the book itself (and even previous interviews).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 17 septembre 2013 - 09:40 .

[MerinTB]

You guys want to get really confused?

Play a Resident Evil video game, then watch a Resident Evil live action movie.

Or read Batman, from the 60's, then watch the Adam West Batman TV series, then read pre-Crisis 80's Batman, then watch Batman TAS, then watch the George Clooney Batman movie, then read Pre-Infinite Crisis Batman, then watch Brave and the Bold, then watch Dark Knight Rises.

Or try and connect the thread through Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki, from OVA's to movies to manga, then compare canons to Tenchi in Tokyo, Tenchi Universe and Magical Girl Pretty Sammy.

---

Or you could read all the various versions of King Arthur or Robin Hood over the years.

---

Or you could just deal with the fact that games != comics != novels != TV series != movies.

[esper]

Ryzaki wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Aaaaaaaand people still don't understand canon. Welp I'm going to bed.

I figured this out 5 years ago with Harry Potter.

God debating those interviews...

What do you mean? The Dumbledore Was Gay thing?

That was a part of it but she didn't exactly contradict herself on that so I was fine with it. It was mostly the whole Slytherins weren't all traitors thing despite the book's many suggestions that...they were. (And about her negative portrayals of Slytherins in the books). And other things. It's been a while. XD But she contradicted herself several times in interviews with what was in the book itself (and even previous interviews).

Dear Maker, do not remind of the many, many papers I have had to read about the death of the Author. (Shudder).

[esper]

MerinTB wrote...

You guys want to get really confused?

Play a Resident Evil video game, then watch a Resident Evil live action movie.

Or read Batman, from the 60's, then watch the Adam West Batman TV series, then read pre-Crisis 80's Batman, then watch Batman TAS, then watch the George Clooney Batman movie, then read Pre-Infinite Crisis Batman, then watch Brave and the Bold, then watch Dark Knight Rises.

Or try and connect the thread through Tenchi Muyo! Ryo-Ohki, from OVA's to movies to manga, then compare canons to Tenchi in Tokyo, Tenchi Universe and Magical Girl Pretty Sammy.

---

Or you could read all the various versions of King Arthur or Robin Hood over the years.

---

Or you could just deal with the fact that games != comics != novels != TV series != movies.

That is how I deal wiht it personally, but bioware tries to land in a almost canon country of "The events does happen, just differently'.

Which means that Isabella (since it is a past event and thus not affectable by the game) did drown slaves, which I can understand players being upset over because it does paint 90% of her actions in da2 in a different light.